(a) implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on March 10, 2010 by Seoul Western District Court (Seoul Western District Court Decision 9273) with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. Transfer of real estate listed in the separate sheet;

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. The above paragraph 1(b) may be provisionally executed.

A. On October 25, 2002, the Plaintiff Union obtained authorization from the head of Mapo-gu Office for the purpose of constructing multi-family housing in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul District on October 25, 2002.

B. Around 2008, the Defendant entered into a membership agreement with the Plaintiff Union even though it is not a member of the Plaintiff Union.

C. On July 6, 2009, the Defendant entered into a housing supply contract (hereinafter “instant housing supply contract”) with the Plaintiff’s association and the Defendant to purchase real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in the purchase price of KRW 436,636,30.

D. The housing supply contract prepared by the Defendant at the time of entering into the instant housing supply contract provides that the Plaintiff’s cooperative shall jointly pay the down payment, intermediate payment, and remainder to the designated account in the name of the national bank in the name of Gyeongnam-nam-si, a joint seller selling the instant apartment. However, the Defendant paid the said designated account the sum of KRW 16,637,620 as the sales price, including the sum of KRW 14,697,620 on January 22, 2009, and KRW 16,637,620 on September 1, 2009, and the sum of KRW 1,637,620 on September 1, 2009. Meanwhile, the part in the name of the Defendant, a joint seller of the instant housing supply contract, written only the part in the name of the Plaintiff’s cooperative and the Defendant’s name on September 10, 209.

E. On February 26, 2010, the Plaintiff Union completed the registration of ownership preservation on the instant apartment on March 10, 2010, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 6, 2009 (hereinafter “the instant registration of ownership transfer”).

F. However, the Plaintiff Union prior to the instant housing supply contract with the Defendant

Upon entering into the instant housing supply contract on January 25, 2010, the Seoul Western District Court issued a summary order of KRW 300,000,000 on the ground that the housing association violated the provisions of the Housing Act that the housing association should sell the apartment house to the Defendant by open recruitment, and that the above summary order became final and conclusive around that time, on the ground that D, the head of the Plaintiff association, including the Defendant, voluntarily sold the apartment house supplied by the Plaintiff association to the 61 non-qualified members, including the Defendant, and that the remaining house after the Plaintiff association supplied to the association members is at least 20 or 20 households.

【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, 9 evidence, Gap evidence 8, 13-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole defenses

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

(1) Failure to undergo a resolution at a general meeting of union members

The portion of a building newly built and completed by a housing association, which belongs to the collective ownership of all the members of the association, and which belongs to the collective ownership of all the members of the association, and the management and disposition of collective ownership, if any, shall be governed by the articles of association or regulations of the housing association, and if no such articles of association or regulations exist, a resolution shall be adopted at the general meeting of the members of the association. Such acts without going through such procedures are null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da52214, Dec. 13, 2007).

As long as the Defendant entered into the instant housing supply contract as a non-qualified member, it constitutes one-half-out sale, and further, the fact that the Plaintiff’s union entered into with the Defendant at the general meeting of the Plaintiff Union’s members did not make any resolution on the instant housing supply contract is as seen earlier, and thus, the instant housing supply contract is null and void.

In regard to this, the defendant set forth the "matters concerning the acquisition or disposal of fixed assets" in the rules of the association as the resolution of the board of directors, and decided to sell them voluntarily at the board of directors on three occasions, including ① September 27, 2002; ② October 6, 2006; ③ October 2, 2008; and thus, the housing supply contract of this case is valid.

Therefore, according to the evidence evidence No. 3, the plaintiff union may recognize the fact that the "matters concerning the acquisition or disposal of fixed assets" was prescribed as the resolution by the board of directors (Article 15 subparagraph 2 (a)) as a matter of resolution by the board of directors (Article 15 subparagraph 2 (a)). However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the evidence No. 1 of the above provision has the same provision in the articles of association prior to the amendment of the articles of association on March 8, 2008. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. The plaintiff union's board of directors of the board of directors of the association of the Republic of Korea became disqualified from the examination of the qualifications of the members before moving into the association on October 2, 2008 and decided to sell them voluntarily to the persons removed from the members of the association, and the fact that the new articles of association and the witness evidence No. 10 can not be acknowledged as one of the matters to be delegated to the plaintiff union's new articles of association concerning the disposal of the above articles of association.

The defendant's defense dispute is not accepted because it is difficult to see that the general share of the apartment house among Korea's apartment houses is included in fixed assets that can be resolved by the board of directors of the plaintiff union.

(2) Violation of relevant laws and regulations

According to Article 38(1) of the Housing Act, which was in force at the time of the instant housing supply contract, and Article 3(2) proviso and 6, and Article 8(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Regulations on Housing Supply, where the housing remaining after supplying the members among the apartment houses constructed by a regional housing association to supply them to its members is at least 20 or 20 households, the remaining housing shall be sold through open recruitment with the approval of the competent government office. Articles 96(1)1 and 39(1) of the Housing Act provide that the act of letting the regional housing association acquire the housing by false or other unlawful means, and Articles 97 subparag. 9 and 38(1) of the Housing Act provide that the above provision constitutes a mandatory provision that does not constitute a violation of social order, such as open recruitment, as stipulated in the Regulations on Housing Supply, and that the above provision constitutes a compulsory provision that does not constitute a violation of social order, and thus, is null and void under the mutual agreement between the parties to the housing supply contract.

Therefore, the defendant, although his spouse owned a house, expressed his intention to be supplied with a house newly built by the plaintiff union around October 2008, even though he was not a member of the plaintiff union, he prepared a preferential membership contract with the plaintiff union and then subsequently sold it to the general public.

In light of the fact that the defendant was recommended to convert into approximately 3.81% of the total sale price of KRW 436,637,620,636,30 as stated in the housing supply contract prepared at the time of the housing supply contract of this case, and that the defendant paid KRW 419,98,680 in cash, etc., the defendant argued that the remaining sale price of KRW 419,99,68,680 was paid in cash, but it is not clearly revealed that the defendant's assertion and cash were actually paid in the plaintiff's association or the city's corporation. At the time of the conclusion of the housing supply contract of this case, the defendant prepared the housing supply contract of this case, and prepared the housing supply contract of this case, and prepared the housing supply contract of this case, and did not raise any objection against the plaintiff's association as a joint seller, it is difficult to conclude the housing supply contract of this case without cooperation with the related parties of the plaintiff association in violation of the relevant laws and regulations.

Ultimately, the plaintiff union and the defendant concluded a housing supply contract of this case that contain contents contrary to the mandatory laws and regulations, and the housing supply contract of this case also becomes null and void in that it constitutes a juristic act with contents contrary to good morals and other social order.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, as long as the housing supply contract of this case is null and void, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant also becomes null and void. Since the apartment of this case belongs to the plaintiff's ownership, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer and deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. Judgment on the defendant's defense

(1) Determination on the violation of the principle of good faith

The defendant's claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case and the transfer registration of this case against the defendant is in violation of the principle of trust and good faith as provided in Article 2 of the Civil Act by unfairly infringing the defendant's trust worthy of protection caused by the plaintiff's prior act after the plaintiff union allowed the defendant to move into the apartment of this case, and the plaintiff union did not raise any objection within three years after the completion of the ownership transfer registration of this case to the defendant. The plaintiff union's claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case and the transfer of this case's apartment of this case's case's apartment of this case's case's case's case's lawsuit of this case's case's lawsuit of this case's case's case's case's claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration and the transfer registration of this case's apartment of this case's case's case's case's case's lawsuit of this case's case's case's case's case's claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case's case's case's case's case's case's appeal.

Therefore, it is against the good faith principle to claim the restitution of the benefit by a person who violates the mandatory law by asserting the non-performance of the agreement in violation of the mandatory law.

The rejection on the ground that it constitutes payment of benefits or non-debts is rather to realize the result to be excluded by mandatory laws and regulations, and its legislative purpose is entirely eliminated, so it is unreasonable to reject such rejection. On the other hand, in order to deny the exercise of rights on the ground that it violates the good faith principle, it is necessary to provide faith to the other party, or objectively consider the other party’s trust and good faith, and the other party’s trust and good faith should be in a state to the extent that it is not acceptable in light of the concept of justice (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da17482, Mar. 10, 201).

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s association cannot be deemed to have violated the good faith principle to seek cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the instant apartment and delivery of the instant apartment on the ground that the instant housing supply contract is null and void in violation of the relevant laws and regulations, or to have violated the good faith principle to seek for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the instant housing supply contract, or to constitute illegal consideration or non-payment of debt. ② Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff’s association’s cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the instant case and seeking for delivery of the instant apartment against the Defendant’s trust in the validity of the instant housing supply contract, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the instant housing transfer transfer registration and the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of the instant apartment is acceptable in light of the concept of justice. ③ Meanwhile, there is no evidence to prove that the sales price alleged by the Defendant’s association was paid in full to

(2) Determination as to simultaneous performance defense

The defendant paid KRW 436,636,00 to the plaintiff union and 436,636,000 for the sale price of this case in cash. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer of this case and this claim are

A simultaneous performance objection shall be made to the purport that the request for delivery of the apartment of this case may be complied with.

Therefore, in a case where a judgment consortium or bilateral contract becomes null and void and mutually acquired parts of the parties to the contract should be returned to one another, the mutual obligation to return mutually acquired parts of the parties under the good faith principle is concurrently performed (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da45025, May 14, 1993). Thus, the defendant's obligation to cancel the ownership transfer registration of this case and the obligation to deliver the apartment of this case are concurrently performed with the obligation to return the purchase price of the Plaintiff Union. Meanwhile, the defendant paid the sum of KRW 16,637,620 to the designated account specified in the housing supply contract prepared by the Plaintiff Union. However, as seen above, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant paid the remainder of the purchase price to the Plaintiff Union, the defendant's simultaneous performance clause is just within the scope of the above 16,637,620 won

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant received the above KRW 16,637,620 from the plaintiff union, while performing the procedure for cancellation registration of the ownership transfer registration of this case, and there is a duty to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff union's claim is justified only within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the application of the proviso of Article 101 of the

(Release of List of Real Estate)